Richard Dawkins vs Conall and Donall

[MoreCoffee]

I would watch them in debates against Christians, who use scripture as part of their argument. Then, you will get a better feel of their knowledge of scripture.

Oh, I've done that many times. It's useful to know the views of one's target for satirical Conall and Donall video clip discussions

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I've done that many times. It's useful to know the views of one's target for satirical Conall and Donall video clip discussions

Cool.

For people who rely completely on scripture and there own interpretation of the same, they are not going to listen or trust anything that disagrees with that anyway, so why bother?

If you feel scripture and your interpretation of the same is completely reliable, than more power to you and you don't need to listen to anyone else.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Cool.

For people who rely completely on scripture and there own interpretation of the same, they are not going to listen or trust anything that disagrees with that anyway, so why bother?

If you feel scripture and your interpretation of the same is completely reliable, than more power to you and you don't need to listen to anyone else.

Sir! I am a Catholic! No Catholic adheres to "scripture alone"

I like my Catholic bible, it has many beautiful passages and some very profound reflections on being human and on matters of great importance like truth, beauty, wisdom, and love. Yet I am no fundamentalist about the bible. Not one to defend or offer an argument for why such and such an atrocity is not really what it says it is in the bible.

Many people who choose to debate Christianity appear to be even less informed about it than the Fundamentalist Creationist advocate is about biology and biological evolution. It will not serve one well to be ignorant of the opposing view. In fact one's own views are enriched by exposure to counter arguments.

 

[bhsmte]

Sir! I am a Catholic! No Catholic adheres to "scripture alone"

I like my Catholic bible, it has many beautiful passages and some very profound reflections on being human and on matters of great importance like truth, beauty, wisdom, and love. Yet I am no fundamentalist about the bible. Not one to defend or offer an argument for why such and such an atrocity is not really what it says it is in the bible.

Many people who choose to debate Christianity appear to be even less informed about it than the Fundamentalist Creationist advocate is about biology and biological evolution. It will not serve one well to be ignorant of the opposing view. In fact one's own views are enriched by exposure to counter arguments.

Speaking for myself, I have studied the NT in depth and IMO, it is not reliable from a historical perspective. It is a wonderful work of theology and if people want to believe it on faith, I say, go for it.

Also, it is not all that difficult, to point out why the NT is not on good historical footing and I don't know which debates you have observed, but I have watched many where this becomes plainly obvious.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Speaking for myself, I have studied the NT in depth and IMO, it is not reliable from a historical perspective. It is a wonderful work of theology and if people want to believe it on faith, I say, go for it.

Also, it is not all that difficult, to point out why the NT is not on good historical footing and I don't know which debates you have observed, but I have watched many where this becomes plainly obvious.

Well, as professor Snape was want to say "Obviously!"

The bible is not a history, right?